Check out this half-hour film that Penn Central believed would help attract federal funds.
IMO, the film is pathetic, and I can't believe that someone was paid to produce this. The film focuses on everything that had gone wrong with Penn Central. It does not at all present a persuasive argument for support, nor does it underscore how the railroad serves the regions where it runs.
If I had been a decision-maker, I wouldn't have funded them either.
Regardless of how you feel about Penn Central, the film is a great example of how not to present a persuasive argument for support.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmyYqfNYnc
Okay, we often hear claims that insist that private enterprise is more efficient than government run operations.
If all the resources that ultimately were poured into Conrail, were instead offered as a loan to PennCentral.....would the end result have been better, or worse?
Convicted OneIf all the resources that ultimately were poured into Conrail, were instead offered as a loan to PennCentral.....would the end result have been better, or worse?
Pre or post staggers?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Good question....."all other variables being the same as what did ultimately happen"
And, we'll force the merger of the other odds and end roads that were swept into Conrail.
An admitted cynic, I have to suspect there still would be some priority given to paying dividends, that would rob funds otherwise available for restoration work.
hagglers gotta haggle, etc.
zugmann Convicted One If all the resources that ultimately were poured into Conrail, were instead offered as a loan to PennCentral.....would the end result have been better, or worse? Pre or post staggers?
Convicted One If all the resources that ultimately were poured into Conrail, were instead offered as a loan to PennCentral.....would the end result have been better, or worse?
Because of Penn Central, we now have Amtrak. In a way, because of Penn Central we have the partial deregulation beginning with the Staggers' act.
Without Penn Central's collapse there may not have been Conrail. It took Conrail to really get the government's attention that the railroad industry's problems were more than just bad management, labor and/or just too many rail lines. The biggest problem was heavy handed regulation that the competing modes didn't experience.
Jeff
So did anyone watch the film, and did anyone find it as ineffective as I in its presenting a case for support?
I'm not sure it was as infective as you think. They may not have gotten money directly, but they did get Conrail.
They made a good case for somone to tell them to "get the hell out of my office."
Shock ControlSo did anyone watch the film, and did anyone find it as ineffective as I in its presenting a case for support?
I watched the film ages ago. But not being alive at the time of PC, I have little context for which to say it would have garnered my support then or not. I don't think it's something we can judge based on today's standards.
zugmannI watched the film ages ago. But not being alive at the time of PC, I have little context for which to say it would have garnered my support then or not. I don't think it's something we can judge based on today's standards.
Thanks, but I'm not sure I agree. The elements of a persuasive argument have not changed radically in 50 years.
Shock ControlThanks, but I'm not sure I agree. The elements of a persuasive argument have not changed radically in 50 years.
I worked with guys that owrked for PC. They didn't know whether their paychecks would be good or bounce from week to week. It was another time... I think we're viewing railroad operations from today's perspective. I can't even begin to fathom what it was like back in that era.
Maybe from a purely academic viewpoint you may have a point- but I think context is important here.
You have to remember that Penn Central threatened a number of times to shut down and liquidate. This is what got the government's attention. Penn Central was going down and going to take a good portion of the northeast area's railroads with it. This film is just a visual reinforcement that they had no resources and were running out of time.
The sad thing about the Penn Central 1974 movie - as bad as PC was, the 'profitable' railroad's conditions were not that much better.
When Russia began buying grain from the US in the early 1970's I was working B&O's Locust Point yard where the Indiana Grain export grain pier was. Grain started moving to Locust point in 65 and 100 cars unit grain trains of 100 ton hi-cube covered hoppers. The track structure of Locust Point was laid down in the 1920's and the support tracks for Indiana Grain had been installed with 40 foot grain box cars, not 100 ton covered hoppers. In month of February one year (74 or 75 - my memory fades) there were 59 derailments in the yard for one reason or another - predominately either broken rails or rail turned over account bad tie conditions. And the B&O as a part of Chessie System was profitable; many other locations of the company that DID NOT have the increase in business that Locust Poiint did, didn't get investment to raise the quality of their facilities.
During the Summer lull in grain shipping Chessie System did bring in rail and tie gangs to put down 'relay' welded rail and implement a tie replacement program. Programs that the financial situation of Penn Central would not allow them to undertake.
While the Penn Central film is amateurish in light of 21st Century norms, in 1974 it did wake up some of the 'movers and shakers' to the precarious situation of railroads in general and Penn Central in particular.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Shock Control Check out this half-hour film that Penn Central believed would help attract federal funds. IMO, the film is pathetic, and I can't believe that someone was paid to produce this. The film focuses on everything that had gone wrong with Penn Central. It does not at all present a persuasive argument for support, nor does it underscore how the railroad serves the regions where it runs. If I had been a decision-maker, I wouldn't have funded them either. Regardless of how you feel about Penn Central, the film is a great example of how not to present a persuasive argument for support. www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmyYqfNYnc
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
I was a co-op student and worked with the PRR in the late '50's and I've said many times about that period, "Things are bad and I don't think they can get much worse" I was so wrong. This video shows how bad they got.
Murphy Siding Shock Control Check out this half-hour film that Penn Central believed would help attract federal funds. IMO, the film is pathetic, and I can't believe that someone was paid to produce this. The film focuses on everything that had gone wrong with Penn Central. It does not at all present a persuasive argument for support, nor does it underscore how the railroad serves the regions where it runs. If I had been a decision-maker, I wouldn't have funded them either. Regardless of how you feel about Penn Central, the film is a great example of how not to present a persuasive argument for support. www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmyYqfNYnc I watched it. I understand zugman's thought about context. But, this just looks like they approached the problem from the wrong angle. The film makes it sound as if the PC was so far gone that nobody in their right mind would want to throw any more money at it.
I watched it. I understand zugman's thought about context. But, this just looks like they approached the problem from the wrong angle. The film makes it sound as if the PC was so far gone that nobody in their right mind would want to throw any more money at it.
And if the film had not been made, people would have wondered - didn't there use to be a railroad there!
There was a lot of 'thought' by those outside the industry that how could a merged company of 'The Standard Railroad of the World' and 'The Water Level Route' have gone bankrupt and be in even worse shape than even being bankrupt.
I remember that in 1968 the NP agents had to carefully type waybills for the Penn Central indicating which PC yard in Chicago that the connecting road in had to deliver the cars and waybills to. Example: NP- Mpls CBQ, Chicago PCP or PCN as the case was. Thus the CBQ could deliver the respective cars to the former PRR or NYC yards in Chicago.
After the BN merger, all waybills in the Twin Cities were consolidated at one central location (Mpls Jct), later 44th Avenue, Northtown.
We had our share of no bills and one Sunday my fellow clerk and I had a carman open cars to obtain shippers information and send the no bill cars on their way. I remember many Maine potatoe cars rotting at Selkirk because of no bills.
Ed Burns
Watched it in it's entirety. It was about as persuasive as an employee arguing that he could get more work done, if I would first give him a raise.
The presentation was not entirely without merit. Watching reminded me that I've been postponing a needed trip to the dentist for far too long.
Convicted OneWatched it in it's entirety. It was about as persuasive as an employee arguing that he could get more work done, if I would first give him a raise.
Agreed. At no point did they indicate how saving the railroad would benefit society at large. It was entirely a woe-is-me argument.
I just finished reading Rush Loving's "The Men Who Loved Trains" and I would recommend it to anyone who wants background on how bad Penn Central really was. The pages of TRAINS from 1969 to about 1976 also provide context for those who weren't around during the Northeastern railroad near-collapse.
Shock ControlAgreed. At no point did they indicate how saving the railroad would benefit society at large. It was entirely a woe-is-me argument.
Perhaps those who produced the film assumed that the need for railroads was a foregone conclusion, so they focussed on why the current situation was detrimental to that conclusion.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I remember my undergrad microecon. prof in 1973 in class saying railroads weren't needed. Trucks could handle everything. As much as I loved trains, I could understand why railroads were disinvesting. There was inadequate return on capital across the whole industry. And it had three strikes against it.
tree68Perhaps those who produced the film assumed that the need for railroads was a foregone conclusion, so they focussed on why the current situation was detrimental to that conclusion.
A general "need for railroads" is not the same as compelling, specific details on why this one particular railroad was important to this region of the nation. Focusing on rusting rails and peeling paint does not instill much confidence in the applicant organization.
Shock ControlA general "need for railroads" is not the same as compelling, specific details on why this one particular railroad was important to this region of the nation. Focusing on rusting rails and peeling paint does not instill much confidence in the applicant organization.
I don't disagree. But sometimes a person can't see the forest for the trees.
What seems obvious to one person may not be obvious at all to another.
Sometimes, appeals such as this have insidious motives.
Perhaps you might remember when in 1961 FCC chairman Newton Minow gave a speech now famously known as the "Vast Wasteland" speech, in which he criticized broadcast TV as being a procession of game shows and formula comedies about totally unbelievable families..... etc ...many at the time insisted upon regarding the speech as an unprovoked attack on Ward Cleaver.
When in reality, the Government had been looking to better exploit the new medium of television for a few years, but sought a smokescreen to shield itself from potential allegations of propaganda. What the government was actually saying was "get ready to see us spending significant money in this area, and here is the reason why"....and almost overnight the Education Television Facilities Act began pouring money into National Educational Television, with the goal of expanding what had been at best a half hearted effort, into a fourth network.
The eventual fruit of that effort becoming what we now call PBS.
In similar spirit, might the video you present have been part of a grander scheme designed to make Joe Taxpayer more receptive to the government getting involved in day to day matters of railroading? That's what the video did for me, was to put me in a "well something is going to have to be done" frame of mind.
This was six years before Staggers, and the railroads were pretty much hamstrung with regulations that prevented them from getting the rate increases they needed. They also couldn't sell off unprofitable lines or get their labor numbers out of the steam age. Worst hit were the lines in the Northeast with their short hauls.. I guess the film was a last ditch effort at obtaining help.. i.e. we can't charge more because you won't allow us to.. we can't cut our labor costs because you won't allow us to.. we can't get rid of unprofitable business or aboandon unproftiable lines because you won't allow us to.. so.. here you go.. give us some money to keep going..
Whether or not the movie made a difference, a serious move toward dereg didn't really begin until Congress got stuck with covering Conrail's losses, which weren't much less than those of the six predecessors prior to April 1, 1976.
I can't help but wonder how many ICC regulators wound up with egg on their faces, that is, the ones who approved the PRR/NYC merger? The merger's approved, then a few years later this film full of carnage comes out?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.